Terms of Service | Translator | Nubian School | Channel Africa | Recommended Books
Re: african origin of chinese civilization
Posted By: Ra_Scienz In Response To: Re: african origin of chinese civilization (quinton)
Date: 6, December 06, at 2:23 p.m.
In Response To: Re: african origin of chinese civilization (quinton)
"from your response i can tell that you are not a scientist or an academic."
Funny, I came to the same conclusion about you. Regardless, everything I said is STILL valid.
"...Flat noses have nothing to do with genetic similarity between races but it has to do with convergent evolution due to similar environments."
Mr academic, what are you basing this on? You previously posted "there were africans in ancient china", but for some reason on the similarity between noses you automatically assume they have independent origins. I've not claimed to know which of the two options is true, but as a so-called "academic", I'd imagine you could give some evidence to back up your conclusion.
"So in your flawed scientific knowledge, i suppose that you think that dolphins and fish are the same because they look the same??"
I don't know WHO you think you're talking to. My "flawed scientific knowledge"? You have NO basis to make that statement. I'm very aware of the basis of convergent evolution, explain to me when I alluded otherwise. All you've been doing this entire post is giving your personal conclusion & not bothering to explain how you get there. Now you think you're talking down to somebody.
"Chinese people have flat noses because the climate in the north and south is hot and humid just like in africa."
Again, no explanation. Just you're personal conclusion based on .....?
"Paleoanthroplogy and paleontology have to do with the study of the evolution of bones, since studying bone morphology is more reliable. Its even more reliable than genetics. Please go and read up on evolution and how neoteny and the law of recaputulation has to do with evolution. it may shed some light and give you some understanding on what i am trying to say."
I've been into paleontology since I was in elementary school. So now you assume that I don't know anything about these fields and hide behind that instead of coming outside and explaining yourself, which is all I've really asked you to do from the jump.
"The fact is that in terms of facial structure there is much difference between Black people and asian people"
The fact also is there is much difference in facial structure within mostly all different clusters of humanity.
"which indicates that, yes there was genetic mutations that took place within these past 100 000 years, just as it occured in europeans. Forensic anthropologists can tell the differences in the skulls."
Most untrained people could see the difference in a skull. It doesn't mean they're valid morphological traits seperating genera, species or populations. For one, that depends on he sample of skulls that are being examined, what features they're calling diagnostic & the resulting categorization, which has been shown to be erroneous many times. People have long been making claims that ancient Egyptian skeletons with what they call "caucasoid" features are Caucasian, when in reality they're just as easily[and more likely] of the same types of people you can find in present-day Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia & parts of Sudan.
"The main reason why i had originally put" the african origin of chinese civilization" is to illustrate the flaw in that assumption. there IS no convincing proof of this."
And you have presented NO convincing proof to the contrary.
"I did not say that there were black people in ancient china."
Now you're lying. In your original post you wrote "The point that I am trying to make is that even though THERE AFRICANS IN ANCIENT CHINA, those africans had already separately themselves (culturally) from Africa, so that they were no longer african once they reached china". I suppose now you're trying to make a disctinction between "black people" & "africans", which is the only possible way you're not lying through your keyboard right now.
"I had read previous threads that claimed that they have genetic evidence to proove that africans started the chinese civilization. They tried to take the flimsy, redundant genetic evidence and make a quantum leap conclusion that african people established the chinese civilization as we know it today. In other words, that the chinese civilization is merely an 'offshoot' of african culture and that it doesnt really exist. This is false."
Genetic evidence of the presence of a group of people in an area is "flimsy" evidence that these same people established the culture of said area? Are you serious? WHY is this false? How about this: why don't you explain to us good people here what the ACTUAL origin of chinese civilization IS, instead of what you claim it's NOT. Then maybe we can get somewhere. It appears to me that you have nothing more than a personal cultural bias against africans for some as yet unexplained reason.
"And no, there was no culture of Homo sapiens between 100 000 -60 000 years ago. If there was, there would have been evidence of it, according to the best antrhoplogists in south africa."
Absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of abscence, genious. And why south africa? What makes you think this evidence should be found there as opposed to west, northeast or central Africa? Just wondering.
"In fact there is more evidence to prove that the neandrathals were more culturally advanced than our ancestors."
"At the end of the day this all has to do with time."
REALLY? Like the time it would've took for members of the corvid family to diversify into species like the crows, ravens & jays we have back in Halifax & also the magpies we have here in Calgary?
"The asians living in calgray are still asians culturally because its not like they were there for 100 000 years."
What about the indigenous amerindians? I'd love to see you explain to some of them that there ancestors were asian. They probably give objections that sound almost exactly like you're anti-african origin ones.
"But the evolution of cultures is exactly the same as the evolution of new species."
That's funny, because I could of swore you JUST wrote "there was no culture of Homo sapiens between 100 000 -60 000 years ago". By this new interpretation(in the following paragraph, no less), the volution of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus would have automatically gave this "new species" culture. In YOUR OWN WORDS.
"The more time two populations are separated from each other, the more they will diverge and become unique. A lot can happen in 100 000 years."
Anyways, do your feet taste like chicken? Lol
Messages In This Thread
RaceandHistory Forum is maintained by Administrator with RaceandHistory 5.12.
|Trinicenter Int. | Africa News Links | 9/11 Home | Latest News | Sources | Search | Homepage
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.